On Sat, Dec 25 2021, Teng Long wrote: > On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 15:42:33 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > "git ls-tree" learns "--oid-only" option, similar to "--name-only". > > > > Will merge to 'next'? > > source: <cover.1639721750.git.dyroneteng@xxxxxxxxx> > > Currently, the "source" is patch v6, and there are some test problems in > [1]. They're not very hard to fix, but I'm considering whether to: > > WAY-1: continue on the current implementation path; > > WAY-2: Combine (steal :) the RFC patch from Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > and some commits of mine, to the next patch, because some arguments > given from Ævar are compelling (of course the test problems will be > fixed too). > > So, I will work on it, I think I will send a new patch based on WAY1 > quickly, and send a further RFC patch on WAY2. If both are ok, let the > community decide which one to use. > > Thanks. Yes there's the test problem I mentioned in [1], but in addition to that your current set of patches have around a ~10% performance regression, as noted in [2]. My RFC series[2] side-steps that by leaving the current code in-place, and only introducing a new optional --format path for new output formats. I really don't mind if you go for "WAY-1" first over my RFC --format "WAY-2", but I do think any such change should be prominently noting/selling that this new feature is worth the performance regression, or finding some alternate "WAY-1+" to avoid it. 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/211217.86o85f8jey.gmgdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ 2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/RFC-cover-0.7-00000000000-20211217T131635Z-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/
